You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

35
-12

[–] moe 35 points -12 points (+23|-35) ago 

opposed to the core values of voat

In what way? I need specific examples here, not a bunch of people telling me the same vague thing over and over again after being linked here from a different subverse.

8
49

[–] Scandinavian 8 points 49 points (+57|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Great. We got an SJW white knight as moderator in a core function, subverserequest, having basically transferred a huge verse, AskVoat, to SJWs despite loud protests. Might as well go back to Reddit then.

6
5

[–] ChillyHellion 6 points 5 points (+11|-6) ago 

I don't think asking for evidence is white knighting. Innocent until proven guilty is a much better system than "innocent until enough people say they don't like you." @moe is also limited by the rules of the site, which means he can't just deny subverserequests to people that he doesn't like. I think that's a good system also, since @moe may not always be the one approving requests.

I came to Voat because on Reddit the censorship gun is always pointed at the unpopular opinion. On Voat I don't have to worry about where the gun is pointed because there is no gun. That works both ways. I don't want my speech to only be protected because it's popular. Then Voat is no better than a Reddit clone. We have to face the reality that you can disagree with everything about a person and still have to coexist with them because the same system that protects you is protecting them. I disagree with everything about the SJW movement, but throwing labels around like "SJW" and "White Knight" without anything to back that up is just as lazy as throwing around "misogynist".

14
1

[–] moe 14 points 1 points (+15|-14) ago 

I'm asking for examples here.
If you cannot provide any, then your claims are of no use to me.

6
42

[–] flope_de 6 points 42 points (+48|-6) ago 

I was actually linked here from a thread in /v/AskVoat :).

You'll only have to look at her three lowest ranked comment to see why people are concerned.

She thinks normal people are unable to understand, and should not discuss, issues transvestites might have..

She defends feminism, and ideology based around female supremacy, and sexism and gender discrimination against men.

She defends the SJW culture, a movement known for bullying and silencing people who do not share their worldview.

12
4

[–] SpaceRosa 12 points 4 points (+16|-12) ago 

That's not true. You're spinning it.

The first link is "I don't understand why people talk about issues they don't know about." Not "You should not discuss trans issues". You're just lying about what it is, or maybe you're deliberately choosing that interpretation.

The second one is difficult to judge; the topic was deleted, so I don't know what that was a response to.

Third? Defending SJW culture? She said "it's the boogeyman", and you know, she's right. Look at all the downvotes this thread has got because someone who didn't know what they were talking about used the word SJW. All this fear for no reason. SJW is the new boogeyman, at least here. It's not defending it to have an opinion on the word.

Or are you saying she shouldn't be allowed the subverse because she has opinions you don't like?

9
3

[–] Icy-Defiance 9 points 3 points (+12|-9) ago  (edited ago)

If feminism is about female supremacy then gamergate is about male supremacy and FPH is about literally killing fat people. And I say that as a gamergate supporter and someone who seriously despises the SJW mentality.

And to see that third link as defending anything, your mind must be seriously warped, especially if you look at it in context.

The first link is the only one that is bad, but if you look at the replies to it, she listened to the feedback and said she'd keep it in mind.